Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 043

Saturday, November 7 1998

• Re: Avodah V2 #41 Brisker Derech
• Hamurabi & Amraphel
• Methodology of pshat - Avraham and Hagar
• Re: Avodah V2 #42 Feminisim etc.
• Re: Avodah V2 #42 Minhog Pluralism
• Re: Hamurabi & Amraphel
• Re: Avodah V2 #42 Minhog Pluralism
• Re: Methodology of pshat - Avraham and Hagar
• Re: nimrod/Hammurabi
• Re: nimrod/Hammurabi
• Re: Methodology of pshat - Avraham and Hagar
• Re: Ramban on Avraham and Sarah
• Re: Ramban on Avraham and Sarah
• Yom Tov Sheini in EY
• Pluralism

While I personally think it is probably wrong for Bnei Chu"l to sit in a
Sukka on Shmini Atezres in EY, nevertheless, the case may be made that
they remain Bnei Chu"l and are not subject to the parameters of Bnei EY at
all.

For Bnei EY, however, Shemini Atzeres is definitely not Hoshana Rabba, and
for them it is definitely, as explicit Gemaros indicate, BT to sit in a
Sukka on Shemini Atzeres. At least l'chumra, the Brisker Rav must have
been considered a Ben EY.

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Joel Margolies wrote:

> Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> > >      And what about a beni chutz lo'oretz in EY WRT to Sukkah on Smini
> > >      Atzeres?
> > 
> > Bal Tosif!
> 
> 
> Could you please be a bit more specific?  I remember that in Yeshiva
> (Kerem B'Yavneh) most of the Americans sat in the Sukkah for Shmina
> Atzeres and were expected to.  None of the rebbeim said anything.  Are
> you trying to say that they should not have sat in the sukkah?
> 
> (please forgive me if I missed part of the thread - but doesn't this get
> into the huge machlokes about what bnei chutz la'aretz should do if in
> EY for the Chagim?)
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Joel 
> -- 
> 
> Joel
> Margolies                                                                           
> margol@ms.com	
> W-212-762-2386
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> 
> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:45:30 -0600 (CST)
> From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
> Subject: Re: 1. Hamurabi; 2. Hok & Rav Soloveitchik
> 
> On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Shalom Carmy wrote:
> > 
> > The suggestion that Amraphel=Hamurabi bounced around a generation or two
> > ago (Shinar=Sumer). My impression is that scholars no longer take it
> > seriously.
> > 
> Can you please explain your impression, which scholars and why  they don't
> take
> it seriously
> 

I used the word "impression" because I'm reporting something I'm aware of,
but never had reason to go into carefully. There is no reason to make the
identification other than the similarities between the two names and the
two place names. It occurs to me that since Nimrod is not a descendant of 
Shem and the Sumerians aren't either, that could make the connection
slightly more plausible.

As for dismissing the identification: I can see 3 possible reasons:

1. Why speculate that something is the case if you have no evidence for
it? What does such speculation contribute either to historical study or to
yirat Shamayim?

2. The dates may not work out.

3. The phonetic switches between the languages don't work. (My very
inexpert trickle down knowledge indicates that it does, but I wouldn't
rely on such heavily diluted competence.)

By "scholars" I mean people whose knowledge of Mesopotamian history and
languages would give them the right to have an opinion. I could fill in
the blanks by putting in an afternoon at the library. But it seems more
productive to forward this to a colleague with active expertise, upon
whose judgment I would be willing to rely. I hope to report his response.

Without commenting on D. Glasner's pshat directly (which should be judged on
the merits of it ability to explain the text), I would like to comment on the
methodology.  A criticism of writing "personal p'sat which runs kineged
chazal" seems to ignore that this was in fact the very methodology of the
Rishonim when they felt they had a better approach to the text, e.g Ramban
(Ber 8:4) justifies learning pshat differently than Rashi's Midrash citations
by pointing out that Rashi himself opened the path to the derech of discarding
Midrash where the pshat fits the text better.  The process of refining our
approach to the text is ongoing, as Rashbam in his famous line refers to the
"pshatim hamitchadshim", ands there is no reason not to continue it to our
time (with the caveat that we truly have arrived at a 'better' approach to the
text).  Though  technically correct that no Rishon criticizes Avraham's
treatment of Hagar, the fact that the Rishonim write (unsupported by the text)
that Avraham sent food, money, etc. supports the notion that they were
bothered by the seemingly callous behaviour of Avraham. More importantly,
Ramban's criticism of Avraham's descent to Mitzrayim   demonstrates that the
Rishonim were open to criticizing Avraham even where Chazal did not do so
without fear that acknowledging shortcomings of our leaders in any way
diminishes their stature.  If one is led by a close reading of the text to a
critical judgement of the Avos not spelled out in the Rishonim, can we not
balance that critical text-based judgement with our appreciation for the Avos?

-Cb

Richard Fielder et. al. write: 
>>Where is the beef? What is the aveirah?
     
     
YGB-> Is this aveirah lishma or plain aveirah?
     
     
Wolpoe->    Feminism is IMHO - similar to other isms - at odds with Judaism.
     
Wolpoe->     If a women's ONLY weakness/flaw were fenisits deviations, she 
might be doing an aveiro but still be considered frum.  one aveiro is 1 
aveiro; it's not right but I don't think it's fair to heneceforth lable them 
as non_orthodox or non-shomer Mitzvos.  It probably wouls be valid to label 
them as chot'os...<<
     
The aforementioned aveiro is hypothetical (as YGB noted)
     
Re: WTG, If it conforms to halocho - no problem.  if it doesn't, there is a 
problem, How big the problem is, is subject to our discussion.
     

Re: feminism. (With all due respect to women) IMHO No "ism" can set itself 
above halocho.  Not socialism, not feminism, not liberlaism, capitalism 
etc.  (it might also be said of Hashkofo, but I'll leave that one alone for 
now).  
     
     
     
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe 
     
     

     RYGB writes: >> believe this is different, becaues among the 
     rationales given for not wearing Tefillin on ChM *is* Bizui Mo'ados,<<
     
     To summarize: in general minhog pluralism is ok, with some exceptions 
     such as Bizuy Moados which is a special case.  Correct?
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
     
       

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Shalom Carmy wrote:
> 
> 1. Why speculate that something is the case if you have no evidence for
> it? What does such speculation contribute either to historical study or to
> yirat Shamayim?
I don't know if it's true or not ---but since Nimrod seemed to be a
powerful ruler who lived in the basic same location and the basic time of
a known to a history ruler it would be neet to see if they are the same.
but it defitintly has no effect on my yiras shamayim I already have enough
evidence that the torah is true.
> 
> 2. The dates may not work out.
> 
but they may
> 3. The phonetic switches between the languages don't work. (My very
> inexpert trickle down knowledge indicates that it does, but I wouldn't
> rely on such heavily diluted competence.)
> 
> By "scholars" I mean people whose knowledge of Mesopotamian history and
> languages would give them the right to have an opinion. I could fill in
> the blanks by putting in an afternoon at the library. But it seems more
> productive to forward this to a colleague with active expertise, upon
> whose judgment I would be willing to rely. I hope to report his response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
thank you very much for your time, it would be interesting to hear what
you discover
Elie Ginsparg

>      RYGB writes: >> believe this is different, becaues among the 
>      rationales given for not wearing Tefillin on ChM *is* Bizui Mo'ados,<<
>      
>      To summarize: in general minhog pluralism is ok, with some exceptions 
>      such as Bizuy Moados which is a special case.  Correct?
>      
>      Regards,
>      Rich Wolpoe

Yes!

YGB

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Without commenting on D. Glasner's pshat directly (which should be
> judged on the merits of it ability to explain the text), I would like to
> comment on the methodology.  A criticism of writing "personal p'sat
> which runs kineged chazal" seems to ignore that this was in fact the
> very methodology of the Rishonim when they felt they had a better
> approach to the text, e.g Ramban (Ber 8:4) justifies learning pshat

They were Rishonim.

> differently than Rashi's Midrash citations by pointing out that Rashi
> himself opened the path to the derech of discarding Midrash where the
> pshat fits the text better.  The process of refining our approach to the
> text is ongoing, as Rashbam in his famous line refers to the "pshatim
> hamitchadshim", ands there is no reason not to continue it to our time
> (with the caveat that we truly have arrived at a 'better' approach to
> the text).  Though technically correct that no Rishon criticizes

Do tell how this is appraised.

> Avraham's treatment of Hagar, the fact that the Rishonim write
> (unsupported by the text)  that Avraham sent food, money, etc. supports
> the notion that they were bothered by the seemingly callous behaviour of
> Avraham. More importantly, Ramban's criticism of Avraham's descent to

I am glad you used the word "seemingly". It demonstates sensitivity :-).
And who, pray tell, might be authorized to have the temerity to critique
the Avos today?

> Mitzrayim demonstrates that the Rishonim were open to criticizing
> Avraham even where Chazal did not do so without fear that acknowledging
> shortcomings of our leaders in any way diminishes their stature.  If one
> is led by a close reading of the text to a critical judgement of the
> Avos not spelled out in the Rishonim, can we not balance that critical
> text-based judgement with our appreciation for the Avos? 
> 
> -Cb
> 

No!


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 11/5/98 11:40:12 AM EST, mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com writes:

>  I saw in one
>  classic secular history book that hamurrabi lived from 2123 BCE to 2081 BCE
>  (and we know Avraham lived from 1813 BCE to 1638 BCE), but if there's a
>  makor for this idea I would assume the history book is mistaken.

So he died 268 years before Avrohom was born which means 316 years before
Noach died (Avrohom was 48 when Noach died), he lived 42 years so he was born
358 years before Noach died so he lived thru the Mabul as Noach lived 350
years after the Mabul. is my math wrong? 

He couldn't be Yefes as he was the oldest and born just under 100 years before
the Mabul, (Breishis 5:32), he couldn't be Sheim as sheim lived 600 years
(Breishis 11:10-11).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

>     Your'e right (Rashi is a gemarah in Eirivin 53) - I mixed it up.
>There seems to be a debate among secular historians whether Amraphel was
>Hammurabi.  I don't know  if what they are saying is based on anything
>Jewish.  I'm not sure if years wise it works out either.  I saw in one
>classic secular history book that hamurrabi lived from 2123 BCE to 2081 BCE
>(and we know Avraham lived from 1813 BCE to 1638 BCE), but if there's a
>makor for this idea I would assume the history book is mistaken.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hammurabi died in 1750 BCE.

Gut shabes to all,

Arnie


Arnie or Linda Kuzmack
kuzmack@cpcug.org

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Without commenting on D. Glasner's pshat directly (which should be judged on
> the merits of it ability to explain the text), I would like to comment on the
> methodology.  A criticism of writing "personal p'sat which runs kineged
> chazal" seems to ignore that this was in fact the very methodology of the
> Rishonim when they felt they had a better approach to the text, e.g Ramban
> (Ber 8:4) justifies learning pshat differently than Rashi's Midrash citations
The point where we must agree to disagree is that we can't compare
ourselves to the rishonim. As I said I have no problem to giving psatim
which increase ahavas torah and yiras shamayim--even if they are not emes
they still serve a useful purpose, I object to psatim which are created by
people in america in the 90's which contradict rishonim on issues the
rishionim themselves dealt wi6th abnd reached different conclusion which
serve no purpose other then to speak ill about our heroes. if such a psat
isn't emes than we risk speaking loshon hara about avraham--not something
i want on my record in heaven---thus it ultimately boils down to a yiras
shamayim issue--how sure are we when we make our psatim which if false
constitue loshan horo---by thre way I'm not concerned about the level of
yiras shamayim the ramban had
Elie Ginsparg

David Glasner wrote:

> In parashat Lech Lecha, the Ramban is critical of Avraham's conduct in
> going down to Egypt and making misleading (though legally accurate)
> statements about the nature of his relationship to Sarah.  He is also
> critical of Sarah's treatment of Hagar and Avraham's toleration of her
> conduct.  Are the Ramban's criticisms based strictly on his own judgment
> or are there any earlier Rabbinic criticisms of Avraham and Sarah in this
> regard?

The Ramban's criticism of going down to Egypt is a Zohar (Tazriah 52 1). Look at
R' Chavell's notes to Bereishis 12 10. R' Chavel (Bereishis 16 6) also finds
support for the Ramban's criticism of Sarah from the Zohar.

                                                 Daniel Eidensohn

Elie Ginsparg wrote:

<<<
If you admit yourself that the same Ramban who criticized avraham
before
doesn't criticize him now --then why don't YOU believe it lets him off the
hook-apparantly the ramban felt he was off the hook
>>>

I don't wish to imply that I am anything other than dust beneath the feet of
the Ramban, but my expressing the view that the Ramban was correct in
one context does not necessarily obligate me to hold the view that he
was correct in every other context.  Certainly, if the issue is whether the
Ramban or I is more authoritative, it is no contest.  But the problem that
concerns me is whether we can come to an understanding of the
conduct described in Bereshit.  The Ramban shows us that we need not
assume that all actions of the Avot were necessarily beyond reproach. 
Am I to conclude that only those actions of the Avot that the Ramban has
explicitly criticized are subject to critical scrutiny?

<<<
   Does it not strike anyone as more than a bit
> strange that Avraham could not have sent his concubine and first-born
> son out into the desert on foot with nothing more than a sack of bread
> them enough bread and water to last them until they got to Be'er
Sheva. 
 
you make it seem like you have discovered a question which now needs
an
answer, what do you mean "strike Anyone" Rashi, ibn
ezra,ramban,radak,
ralbag,and rashban to name a few dealt with this question and needless
to
say they didn't answer like you did---in fact its clear you didn't see all
the meforshim because some explain that Avraham did give hagart
money.
>>>

You are right I did not look at the commentaries carefully before posting
my message.  I apologize.  Because I had been thinking all week about
these questions and then felt that a flash of inspiration had hit me, I may
have been too quick to send out my musings.  However, now that I have
checked some of the commentaries, I see that I am not alone in my view. 
Rashi explicitly states that Avraham gave them no money.  He also
states, casting Avraham's conduct in an even worse light, that Sarah's
resentment (ayin harah) toward Ishmael caused him to fall ill, which is
why Hagar had to carry him on her shoulders and why he quickly drank
up their entire water supply before they could reach Be'er Sheva.  (Nor
can the efficacy of Sarah's ayin harah be taken as a sign of Divine
concurrence with Sarah's resentment, since we see that Jacob gave
explicit directions to his sons to avoid ayin harah when they went down
to Egypt.  Would the Egyptians' jealousy of the good looks of the
Shevatim have been a just basis for the efficacy of their ayin harah
against the Shevatim?)  R. Ibn Ezra notes that in his time (before the age
of Reform and Conservative Judaism!) that there were those that
wondered how Avraham could have sent Hagar and Ishmael away with
nothing.  R. Ibn Ezra says that the wonder is how they could wonder
since Avraham was merely following the instruction of the RShO (By the
way, although he disagrees strongly with this view he does not say that
is apikorsut or that it is the view of apikorsim.)  But b'mechilat k'vod
Torato, the position of R. Ibn Ezra is based on the assumption that the
RShO commanded Avraham to follow Sarah's instructions even to the
point of endangering the life of Ishmael.  I don't see how this can be
inferred from the Scripture.

<<<
Let me get this straight, you don't like two medrashim which rashi writes
so you'd rather invent your own answer. This whole approach is
upsetting
to me because it not only ignores almost every rishon it even contradicts
many, I request that RAbbi Glasner find at least one chazal or rishon
which indicates that the akeida was an onesh for yismael thus
giving some legitimacy to his view otherwise i'll
view this as his personal p'sat which runs kineged chazal. I'm not
against
chidush---but not where it points fingers at the avos and calls events
punishments which might not be, we need to seriously question our
abiity
to make some statements. Again---I'll be more than happy to retract my
concerns if Rabbi glassner can produce one legitimate source,
otherwise I
have to view it as RAshi,Ibn ezra, radak etc VS. Rabbi Glassner and
Rabbi
Riskin
>>>

You may characterize my view as k'neged Chazal if you wish.  But I
think that my discussion is very much in the spirit of Chazal.  They are
troubled by the juxtaposition of these three stories, which obviously are
connected in some way and they offer an approach at linking them up. 
Unfortunately, the approach discussed by Rashi seems to me to be
completely unsatisfactory. Your criticism of my approach seems to be
based on the idea that one may not criticize the behavior of the Avot
unless it has been explicitly criticized by some earlier "legitimate"
authority.  (By the way on what or whose authority do you rely to
disallow such criticism?  Is it derived from, say, the 13 principles of the
Rambam?  I suspect it is derived from a more recent authority.)  I have no
such authority to point to on this specific issue.  But the question that I
would pose to you in return is whether you can explain to me why the
conduct of Avraham in sending Hagar and Ishmael into the desert on foot
with minimal supplies was not more blameworthy than the meagerness
of his sacrifices to the Almighty.  Don't the Prophets tell us that G-d
prefers proper conduct to a multitude of sacrifices?  And can you
explain to me why it was necessary to have an akeida to refute
Ishmael's boasting about having been circumcised at the age of 13 years
rather than 8 days? 

Finally, I appreciate your reference to me as Rabbi Glasner, which I take
as a sincere effort to maintain a respectful tone despite serious
disagreement.  However, since I do not have s'micha, I prefer not to be
addressed or referred to by that title.  You are more than welcome to
use my first name.  If you would rather not, Mr. Glasner would certainly
do just fine.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

A New-old thread.

Question: what is THE criteria that requires a Ben chtuz lo'oretz to observe Yom
Tov sheini while in EY on a temporary basis?

If the criteria is based upon sfeiko d'yomo, the reality is that there is no 
sfeiko d'yomo while in EY regardless of the person's origin or eventual 
destination.  While I am aware that YT sheini is observed due to Minhog Avoseinu
b'yodeinu, nevetheless wouldn't that minhog itself be based upon the sfaiko 
d'yoma concept?

UNLESS   there is an independent reason for a Ben chutz lo'oretz to observe 
Yomtove shieni other than sfeiko d'yoma? 


Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

In message , richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes
>     With regard to YGB's pint on pluralism:
>     1)I agree that EY should support Minhog Pluralism
>     2) IMHO this principle extends in EY to tefillin on chol Hamoed, that 
>     is to say there is no one standard EY minhog forcing a tsibbur to 
>     conform to the prevalent practice of not donning them during CHhM
>     3) When a person who is meiniach during ChhM moves to Israel do they 
>     become subservient to the prvailing Minhog?
>     4) If so does moving to Holland allow one to wait only 1 hour after 
>     meat to eat dairy?
>     4) This principle of pluralims IMHO this could extend to NYC where we 
>     most do not follow ther original Spanish Portueguese Minhog  
>     

Since we are supposed to be a high level Torah group, how about we bring
so sources to bear on the subject.

While I only had a chance to look at this issue quickly towards the end
of shabbas, I note that the Sde Chemed has an extensive discussion of lo
tisgodedu in chelek gimel mareches lamed clal 79 (p289).  He states that
it is a machlokus Rashi and the Rashba versus the Rambam and Tosphos
whether lo tisgodedu applies to minhag or not.  Rashi and the Rashba say
no, it only applies to d'orisa or d'rabbanan issues (ie so that the
torah will not appear like two toros, but in minhag, which are divrei
rishus anyway, then it is OK), while the Rambam and Tosphos hold that it
applies to minhag, because then people will divide each having a
different shul and different beis din, and that will cause machlokus and
so is forbidden in the one city (and, according to Tosphos, in nearby
towns in the same area).  He cites the Chatam Sofer as saying that the
maskana of the Magen Avraham, the Rif, tosphos and the Rosh was that
minhag is included in the issur.  He also cites other opinions that it
depends whether we are dealing with minhag sheyesh chiluk daas shel
issur, or merely with whether it is a minhag in a d'var reshus.

In particular he has an extremely long discussion, both here and
mareches chol hamoed ois 14 on the particular subject of putting on
tephillin on chol hamoed with particular reference to Eretz Yisroel.

Perhaps if I have another shabbas in next week and a clear space of time
to then write it up motzei shabbas (not clear, I have been extremely
busy of late, both on shabbas and out of it), I might have a chance to
summarise the opinions there, but if people are interested in the issue
they might like to look at the Sde Chemed themselves and follow up the
references cited (something I have not had a chance to do)

>     Regards,
>     Richard Wolpoe
>

Shavuah tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]